According to a @github research, women coders' pull requests are accepted at a higher rate than men's! Happy International Women’s Day!
https://t.co/btWm1DSg0p
Do you believe gender still impacts career aspirations?

When you read code, the race, religion, politics, gender, and orientation of the author are most certainly factors in the readers' perspectives.
Don't be lazy like your racist uncle on Thanksgiving and read up on the topic: https://t.co/cCFP3AgX22 and https://t.co/SsfXSRfJsF

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

Abstract

Biases against women in the workplace have been documented in a variety of studies. This paper presents the largest study to date on gender bias, where we compare acceptance rates of contributions from men versus women in an open source software community. Surprisingly, our results show that women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's. However, women's acceptance rates are higher only when they are not identifiable as women. Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless.

Author Comment

This revision addresses community feedback, specifically and most substantially:

(1) controlling covariates using propensity score matching,

(2) providing an interpretation of whether the differences are meaningful,

The paper has a slightly revised title (adding "differences and") and we have added an author, Jon Stallings, who has contributed substantially to the revision.

Additionally, we have revised our data analysis pipeline substantially to use R scripts that extract data from our database and produce latex macros that define numerical results. We believe this improves the reliability of our analysis. In doing so, we found and fixed errors the following errors in the prior version:

* Y-axis in Figure 2 was previously truncated and means and medians in caption were incorrect,

* Rounding errors and transposition of "files changed" and "commits" in "Are women making smaller changes?",

* Incorrect summation of "without reference" pull requests, and consequently the accompanying percentages, in "Are women making pull requests that are more needed?", and

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Josh Terrell conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Andrew Kofink conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Justin Middleton conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Clarissa Rainear analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Emerson Murphy-Hill conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Chris Parnin conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Jon Stallings conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

NCSU IRB approved under #6708.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Data sets from GHTorrent and Google+ are publicly available.

Funding

This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number 1252995. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Feedback on other revisions

Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Follow this preprint for updates

"Following" is like subscribing to any updates related to a preprint.
These updates will appear in your home dashboard each time you visit PeerJ.

You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests.
If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you
no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.

Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint
and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on.
You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.